|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2005 : 22:37:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R. Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic? .
Just looking at the evidence, lat:
-You showed up here claiming Randi was a "shit idol" (whatever the hell that is) because he didn't give you Carlos a million bucks for the picture of the UFO bird flying by the WTC. Nevermind that the prize is not for evidence of UFOs, and that your Carlos' evidence was the epitome of lame. .
Are you sure I created a thread about Carlos' claim?
Are you sure I was the one who first named Carlos here in the SFN?
Are you sure it was bird and not an insect or “something else”?
Are you sure Carlos's application to the prize was for showing the evidence of a UFO?
Are you sure the JREF prize was not for an evidence of a UFO in the year Carlos challenged them?
Are you sure the JREF acted in a professional way with Carlos's challenge.?
If you are sure of your claims , please provide the evidence.
If you don't ,you will just confirm how those old tactics of the old skepticism are already debunked.
All you have ,until now, is the blab blab blab of the pseudo skepticism.
quote:
Originally posted by R. Wreck
-The only clue you give about the "new skepticism" is a rant by this Drasin character who offers this:
quote:
<> Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.
<> Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
<> Point out that the official SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.
<> If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the military project.
<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifyin |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 02:57:42 [Permalink]
|
| Latin, I haven't heard a good UFO story in quite a while. Let's hear yours. come on, out with it already. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 03:29:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by filthy.
Latinijarl, the question, asked many times now, yet remains. As you seem unable to remember it, I'll pose it again:
"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?" .
Do you have evidence that I claimed that I have debunked the old skepticism?
Maybe you have troubles to read the opening post.
Do you have evidence you made an opening post?quote:
It is about how the Old skepticism' debunkery TACTICS are ……..debunked by……..( did you read the name of some author?).
What evidense do you have that the debunkery tactics is true?
quote:
Some questions you think are so smart ,in the reality are just full of misinterpretations ,so I just gave you some time to think about it.
How do you know that you are not the one doing the misinterpretations?
After all, you have confessed that you are not a native Engilsh speaker. So why should we believe that you know English better than the rest of us? Especially Filthy who's got a lot of experience, or Cuneiformist, who's job is examining language...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/11/2005 03:31:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 03:36:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you sure I created a thread about Carlos' claim?
Are you sure I was the one who first named Carlos here in the SFN?
Are you sure it was bird and not an insect or “something else”?
Are you sure Carlos's application to the prize was for showing the evidence of a UFO?
Are you sure the JREF prize was not for an evidence of a UFO in the year Carlos challenged them?
Are you sure the JREF acted in a professional way with Carlos's challenge.?
If you are sure of your claims , please provide the evidence.
If you don't ,you will just confirm how those old tactics of the old skepticism are already debunked.
All you have ,until now, is the blab blab blab of the pseudo skepticism.
Don't know.
Don't know.
Don't know.
Don't know.
Don't know.
Don't know and neither do you. The difference is that I don't care enough to stalk Randi with groundless speculations over it.
quote:
Repeating the same article without any authorization of the author ,without any comments about it ………………….is that all you got?
Do you have evidence that what you posted is what I call the evidence of the new scepticism?
I repeat to you , you just confirmed with your post, that those debunkery TACTICS of the old skepticism are already debunked.
"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it aside from hand-waving, straw men, blather and the odd post hoc ergo propter hoc fallicy, here & there?"
Until you bring forth an answer this question, your creditability shall remain in grievious doubt.
No tactics here, me lad. Just a question.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/11/2005 03:38:18 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 08:46:12 [Permalink]
|
Latinrandihater said:
quote:
Do you have evidence that what you posted is what I call the evidence of the new scepticism?
How could anybody have that evidence since you absolutely refuse explain what this "new skepticism" is?
Come on dad, you seem totally devoid of potential.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:45:38 [Permalink]
|
| Nice misquote, latinijral, but filthy didn't say that, R.Wreck did. Thus, you have used one of the "tactics" which Drasin says is wrong. You're a pseudoskeptic by your own definitions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:56:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nice misquote, latinijral, but filthy didn't say that, R.Wreck did. Thus, you have used one of the "tactics" which Drasin says is wrong. You're a pseudoskeptic by your own definitions.
My questions were adressed to R. Wreck.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 00:02:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Latinrandihater said:
quote:
Do you have evidence that what you posted is what I call the evidence of the new scepticism?
How could anybody have that evidence since you absolutely refuse explain what this "new skepticism" is?
Come on dad, you seem totally devoid of potential.
Ask the evidence for the one who claimed this :"-The only clue you give about the "new skepticism" is a rant by this Drasin character" |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 00:03:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
My questions were adressed to R. Wreck.
And you've deleted your post, the one to which I was responding, in order to hide the evidence of your misquote. Brilliant! Now you're using the tactics you claim your arch-nemesis, Hal Bidlack, did. I guess he was a "new skeptic," too?
Edited to add: for everyone who missed it, latinijral made a post between furshur's "Come on dad, you seem totally devoid of potential" post and my "Nice misquote, latinijral..." post, in which he quoted filthy's "Don't know. Don't know. Don't know..." post, and then asked filthy why he posted this:You showed up here claiming Randi was a "shit idol" (whatever the hell that is) because he didn't give you Carlos a million bucks for the picture of the UFO bird flying by the WTC. Nevermind that the prize is not for evidence of UFOs, and that your Carlos' evidence was the epitome of lame. Which was posted by R.Wreck, and not filthy.
latinijral could have just confessed to an honest case of mistaken identity, and all would have been fine. But instead, he chose to follow in the footsteps of a man he thinks is unethical for doing what latinijral just did - deleting previous comments to cover up a problem. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 00:16:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
My questions were adressed to R. Wreck.
And you've deleted your post, the one to which I was responding, in order to hide the evidence of your misquote. Brilliant! Now you're using the tactics you claim your arch-nemesis, Hal Bidlack, did. I guess he was a "new skeptic," too?
Hal Bidlack deleted threads entirely.
He didn't deleted a misquote he did.
Next time try to quote the reply .
Did I confused the nicks before? Yes I did. Ask Cuneiformist.
Is that a BIG mistake to you?
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action? |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 04:55:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
My questions were adressed to R. Wreck.
And you've deleted your post, the one to which I was responding, in order to hide the evidence of your misquote. Brilliant! Now you're using the tactics you claim your arch-nemesis, Hal Bidlack, did. I guess he was a "new skeptic," too?
Hal Bidlack deleted threads entirely.
He didn't deleted a misquote he did.
Next time try to quote the reply .
Did I confused the nicks before? Yes I did. Ask Cuneiformist.
Is that a BIG mistake to you?
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
But Hal Bidlack, a dastardly fellow, no doubt, has deleted no threads here. Indeed, while threads on these fora might get locked, every existing word in them is still available for viewing by anyone who so wishes.
Confusing nicks is no big deal; hell, I've done it too, upon occasions when I failed to think before hitting the 'Post' button. However, your style thus far has been condesending and even irritating, so attributing the words of one to another becomes a sign of not caring much about what you write nor the audience you are trying to reach.
quote:
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
I am not sure what this means, and due to some previous misunderstandings on my part, I'll refrain comment until you elaborate. But it smells like another straw man.
As I'm sure you know by now, I am seeking a definition of the New Skepticism. As a skeptic, I would enhance my skills and if the NS is the way to do it, I'm all in favor of it. The problem is:
Neither I nor anyone here can figure out what the hell you're talking about! The New Skepticism; what is?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 07:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Neither I nor anyone here can figure out what the hell you're talking about! The New Skepticism; what is?
Can someone please translate this in spanish, so we might have a better chance of Latin ever giving an answer? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 07:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Neither I nor anyone here can figure out what the hell you're talking about! The New Skepticism; what is?
Can someone please translate this in spanish, so we might have a better chance of Latin ever giving an answer?
Mm, I could try, but that'd be pig spanish Portuguese is close, but not that close. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 08:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Hal Bidlack deleted threads entirely.
He didn't deleted a misquote he did.
Next time try to quote the reply .
Did I confused the nicks before? Yes I did. Ask Cuneiformist.
Is that a BIG mistake to you?
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
But Hal Bidlack, a dastardly fellow, no doubt, has deleted no threads here. Indeed, while threads on these fora might get locked, every existing word in them is still available for viewing by anyone who so wishes.
Confusing nicks is no big deal; hell, I've done it too, upon occasions when I failed to think before hitting the 'Post' button. However, your style thus far has been condesending and even irritating, so attributing the words of one to another becomes a sign of not caring much about what you write nor the audience you are trying to reach.
Ask Dave why he named Hal Bidlack and about his confusion .
My reply was quoted and addressed to Dave, BEFORE Dave edited his reply..
I understand your confusion because your dudes deleted my threads while they were on discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
I am not sure what this means, and due to some previous misunderstandings on my part, I'll refrain comment until you elaborate. But it smells like another straw man.
My reply was addressed to Dave. He knows about his “dude” “action”.
Your post has a tactic of the old skepticism already debunked.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As a skeptic,…(snip)
That quote of yours made me laugh.
Show the evidence that you ARE a real skeptic.
Don't confuse yourself with the pseudo sKepticism.
All I see, until now, is your pseudo skeptic efforts to be out of topic ,so your “dudes” will have another excuse to close another thread about some mistakes of the old skepticism.
If you want to satisfy your curiosity, create a topic about “new scepticism “ ,then you will have an entire topic to discuss about it.
Afraid to do it?
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 09:14:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:
Are you sure I created a thread about Carlos' claim?
Are you sure I was the one who first named Carlos here in the SFN?
Are you sure it was bird and not an insect or “something else”?
Are you sure Carlos's application to the prize was for showing the evidence of a UFO?
Are you sure the JREF prize was not for an evidence of a UFO in the year Carlos challenged them?
Are you sure the JREF acted in a professional way with Carlos's challenge.?
If you are sure of your claims , please provide the evidence.
If you don't ,you will just confirm how those old tactics of the old skepticism are already debunked.
All you have ,until now, is the blab blab blab of the pseudo skepticism.
All the evidence is in here. Make sure you read every word of every page, including all the links. You wouldn't want to miss anything.
quote:
Repeating the same article without any authorization of the author ,without any comments about it ………………….is that all you got?
You must have missed my comments the first time around referring to your obsession with UFOs, so I'll repeat them:
"-Your posts consistently evince a tenuous grasp of reality on this planet.
The only thing I can conclude then is that you are the progeny of Betty & Barney Hill and you have a trailer in Roswell selling little green man mylar balloons."
quote:
Do you have evidence that what you posted is what I call the evidence of the new scepticism?
What you posted:
quote:
Daniel Drasin is the autor of the article : Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery .
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html
Old skepticism is still using those old tactics/strategy that seems to be part of just a dogma of a true believer secta.
If Drasin debunked the "old", then Drasin's blither must be the "new". Or is there another flavor of skepticism you're hiding from us? If you don't believe Drasin is an example of the "new skepticism", then why post it? And if it's not, then you are approaching four months here calling yourself the father of the new skepticism without offering any evidence as to what it is, despite being asked, by my unofficial count, about seven fucking billion times (by the way, that's exagerration and sarcasm, you anal-retentive dimwit).
So latin, just get it over with and tell us how you really were abducted and probed by space aliens. We'll all have a good chuckle and you'll feel better having gotten it off your chest. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
